You are here

Skepticism, Concern Color Aquatics Center Talks

Skeptical remarks about Fort Smith and its dealings with Sebastian County may spring partly from subterfuge and partly from honest concern about the future city-county aquatics center, according to some city and county leaders.

During an hourlong discussion at the Quorum Court meeting last week, several justices of the peace balked at approving two measures to pay for the aquatics center and its redesign to add some features, sometimes questioning the city’s commitment to pay its half of the expenses.

The first measure, which would appropriate the county’s half of the $8 million construction costs originally projected, has twice failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote for quick passage. It goes up for a third reading in March, at which time it could pass with a simple 7-6 majority.

The second measure, introduced Tuesday, addresses the redesign of the center based on feedback during a joint city-county meeting Feb. 12. Residents led by a cadre of Ramsey Junior High students and their teacher called for the reinstatement of a diving well and other features omitted from the current drawing.

Because the city is legally bound to pay no more than the $4 million construction bond package it presented to voters in March, County Judge David Hudson proposed that the county pay all of the additional money needed for the redesign up front and that the city pay its part by absorbing operations losses after the center opens in mid-2014.

The measure failed in a 5-8 vote Tuesday after a discussion in which some JPs seemed to confuse the two proposals, suggesting the redesign proposal amounted to “financing” Fort Smith and even questioning whether the city would repay the county in a timely fashion.

But JP Jim Medley, who supported both measures, said such remarks are just so much “posturing” and “subterfuge.”

“I think people are saying things like that because they’re trying not to vote in favor of the aquatics center,” Medley said Friday. “People in Fort Smith voted 64 percent in favor of this, and those of us on the Quorum Court that live in Fort Smith should listen to how they voted. … All this posturing, all these comments, that’s just subterfuge by people who are against the project. They’re trying to build in failure.”

Until the end of 2012, the 9-4 vote needed to pass the county’s $3.9 million construction appropriation in a single reading seemed secure, though divided along city limits: The nine JPs serving Fort Smith districts favored the center, while the four outside of the city opposed it all along.

But in January, JPs Bob Schwartz and John Spradlin, both of Fort Smith, voted against the appropriation.

Schwartz, a longtime JP and supporter of the aquatics center, said in January that he had second thoughts amid discussion of the county’s struggle to pay for employee raises and its upcoming election seeking renewal of the countywide sales tax.

On Tuesday, he voted “No” on both measures, this time voicing concerns about the city’s embracing its share of responsibility for the redesign.

“It’s not that I don’t trust them or anything,” Schwartz said Friday. “It’s just that I want to get it in writing.”

Schwartz indicated that if he sees a satisfactory redesign and repayment agreement, he would vote for both appropriations.

Spradlin, a new JP, was especially vocal Tuesday, claiming he thought the county might spend the next 30 years trying to get its money out of the city.

But Ray Gosack, Fort Smith city administrator, said city directors were “very receptive” to the idea of repaying the county by absorbing operations losses exactly as Hudson proposed.

“At our board meeting, they said they’re not only willing to do that, but they want to do it in a four-year period,” Gosack said. “It’s very doable.”

The commitment would come in the form of an amendment to the existing interlocal agreement, essentially stating that the county would pay $820,000 for the redesign and expansion and the city would repay its $410,000 share within four years.

Gosack said the board will consider an ordinance to that effect at its March 5 meeting, two weeks before the next Quorum Court meeting.

As for JPs’ concerns about Fort Smith’s intentions, Gosack was understanding: “They are undertaking their due diligence,” he said.